validate_record

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose the return shape: violations, or empty if valid. That is genuinely useful, but it omits whether the call mutates anything, what schema is consulted, and how deep the validation goes given the record object allows additionalProperties.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

One sentence, front-loaded with the action and scope, with the return behavior appended. Nothing wasted and nothing buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The output schema exists, so return values needn't be explained, yet the description still leaves the open-ended record parameter and the source of the validation schema unexplained. For a tool with no annotations and an unconstrained nested object, that leaves a real gap.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0% for a single free-form nested object, so the description must compensate. It only establishes that 'record' is a ledger record checked against 'the schema' – it doesn't say which schema is used or what shape the record must take, which matters since the object is open-ended.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('validate one ledger record') plus the cardinality ('one'), which implicitly separates it from the ledger-wide sibling validate_ledger. It never names that sibling, so the differentiation requires inference rather than being spelled out.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Use is only implied – validating a single record ahead of or after a write. There is no explicit statement of when to call this versus validate_ledger or schema_info, and no mention of prerequisites or ordering relative to add_record/create_ledger.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.